On the subject of Korea…

On the subject of Korea, I visited South Korea about a dozen times with my previous employer. I have found some scans of photographs I had taken on one of my trips in February of 1986. I share them here to sort of let you know the type of war footing that the South considered themselves under.

Continue reading “On the subject of Korea…”

Like 13+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

This Week’s Book Review – Otto Kretschmer

I write a weekly book review for the Daily News of Galveston County. (It is not the biggest daily newspaper in Texas, but it is the oldest.) My review normally appears Wednesdays. When it appears, I post the review here on the following Sunday.

Seawriter

Book Review

Kretschmer a record-breaking World War II U-boat captain

By MARK LARDAS

June 5, 2018

“Otto Kretschmer: The Life of the Third Reich’s Highest Scoring U-Boat Commander,” by Lawrence Patterson, Naval Institute Press, 2018, 288 pages, $39.95

Every wartime activity has its ace-of-aces. In submarine warfare it is Otto Kretschmer, the U-boat commander who sank more tonnage than any other submarine commander in any Navy, during World War II.

“Otto Kretschmer: The Life of the Third Reich’s Highest Scoring U-Boat Commander,” by Lawrence Patterson, is a biography of Kretschmer.

During his career, Kretschmer sank 47 merchant ships totaling 272,043 tons. He accomplished this over a remarkable 20 months, between the start of the war in September 1939 and his capture in May 1941.

Kretschmer also became Great Britain’s “favorite German.” As Patterson shows, he was an honorable foe, assisting the crews of the ships he sank when possible. A firm German patriot, he was apolitical, serving his country rather than a party. He was also a daring and worthwhile enemy, something the British rarely resist. After the war he became good friends with Capt. Donald Macintyre, the Royal Navy captain who sank Kretschmer’s U-99.

“Otto Kretschmer” is the first major biography of Kretschmer written since Terrance Robinson’s “The Golden Horseshoe,” in 1955. Patterson’s biography is a more comprehensive and accurate account than was possible when Robinson wrote his in 1955. Patterson had access to files that were still secret in 1955. All the major participants have died, allowing greater frankness.

Greater honesty does not reflect badly on Kretschmer. Rather it allows him to be seen in greater clarity. Regardless of his cause, he is shown as a remarkable war leader. His men called him “Silent Otto” because of his reserve, but greatly respected him.

Patterson was able to accurately re-create Kretschmer’s career, including his early years in the pre-war Kriegsmarine and his wartime service. Patterson reconstructs each of Kretschmer’s war patrols in U-23 and U-99. He also follows Kretschmer’s years as a prisoner of war in Scotland and Canada. (Kretschmer very much believed resistance within the limitation of the laws of war was an officer’s duty as a POW.)

“Otto Kretschmer” is a revealing look at the career of a consummately professional naval officer. For those interested in the Battle of the Atlantic it should not be missed.

Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, amateur historian, and model-maker, lives in League City. His website is marklardas.com.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

This Week’s Book Review – Unlikely General: “Mad” Anthony Wayne and the Battle for America

I write a weekly book review for the Daily News of Galveston County. (It is not the biggest daily newspaper in Texas, but it is the oldest.) My review normally appears Wednesdays. When it appears, I post the review here on the following Sunday.

Seawriter

Book Review

Gen. ‘Mad’ Wayne builds army to defeat Native Americans

By MARK LARDAS

May 29, 2018

“Unlikely General: “Mad” Anthony Wayne and the Battle for America,” by Mary Stockwell, Yale University Press, 2018, 376 pages, $35

They called him “Mad” Anthony Wayne.

“Unlikely General: Mad Anthony Wayne and the Battle for America,” by Mary Stockwell tells his story. A flawed, often-despised man, Wayne rose above his weaknesses to save the United States.

Stockwell frames Wayne’s biography around Wayne’s greatest achievement: his 1794 victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. It permitted the United States to grow into a nation, which spanned the North American continent. Fought at rapids on the Maumee River, Wayne’s Legion of the United States defeated a coalition of Indian tribes battling to keep settlers out of today’s state of Ohio.

The stakes could not have been higher. The Indians got support from the British (then still occupying forts in the Old Northwest Territory the British had ceded to the United States at the end of the American Revolution). The Native Americans had defeated two previous United States armies, including a massacre of the last army sent into the Ohio Territory in 1791. Had Wayne’s army lost, the United States would likely have been constrained east of the Appalachians, with British-sponsored Indian nations controlling the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River.

Stockwell shows how Anthony Wayne built the army, which defeated the Native Americans and did so despite inadequate supplies, inadequate numbers of troops, and a second in command who actively undermined Wayne.

Stockwell starts with the announcement in the nation’s capitol (then-Philadelphia) of the massacre of General Arthur St. Clair’s army at the Wabash. Stockwell then alternates between telling of Wayne’s appointment and conduct as St. Clair’s military successor, with a biography of Wayne’s life. By using this technique, she shows the links between how Wayne rebuilt the U.S. Army in the northwest and his experiences as a farmer and general earlier in his life.

She demonstrates how Wayne may have been the only general officer in the 1790s U.S. Army capable of developing a force to defeat the Native Americans. “Unlikely General” is a book that captures the complexity of the political and military situation in the 1790s, presenting it in terms that make it clear and understandable.

Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, amateur historian, and model-maker, lives in League City. His website is marklardas.com.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

I Stole This One

The sacrifices that our military men and women make boggle my mind. I am from the generation that ridiculed Vietnam Vets and selfishly thought we were better than them. Yet, in shame and pride, I marvel at, and thank the men and women who have served and protected me and allowed me to live the privileged life that I live. I don’t have words that can thank you enough.

If you have ever read anything I wrote over at that other site, you will know that it involves mostly the Catholic Church. So today, with my first post here, I will shamelessly link to this post from Fr. Z and highlight one of the great men or our country: Fr. Vincent Capodanno.

Memorial Day and Chaplains

Capodanno_prayercardIt is fitting to honor those who served in the armed forces and who gave their lives.

Today I especially have in mind fallen military chaplains.

Here is just one example of service and valor for love of God, neighbor and country.

Father Vince Capodanno was Maryknoll missionary priest.  He was sent first to the missions in Taiwan and later joined the US Navy and served with the 7th Marines in Vietnam and then, after working at the naval hospital, with the 5th Marines.

On 4 September 1967 there was a terrible battle in Que-Son Valley.  As the battle developed Fr. Capodanno heard over the radio that things were getting dicey and so he requested to go out with M company.

As they approached the small village of Chau Lam, they were caught under fire on a knoll.  There was terrible fighting, even hand to hand, and they were almost over run.  Father Capodanno was wounded in the face and his hand was almost severed by a mortar round but he continued to giving last rites and take care of his Marines.  He was killed trying to get to a wounded marine only 15 yards away from an enemy machine gun.

In January 1969, Lieutenant Vincent R. Capodanno, MM, became the second chaplain in United States history to receive our nation’s highest military honor. “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty …”, he was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Medal of Honor Citation:

Medal-of-honorFor conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Chaplain of the 3d Battalion, in connection with operations against enemy forces.

In response to reports that the 2d Platoon of M Company was in danger of being overrun by a massed enemy assaulting force, Lt. Capodanno left the relative safety of the company command post and ran through an open area raked with fire, directly to the beleaguered platoon.

Disregarding the intense enemy small-arms, automatic-weapons, and mortar fire, he moved about the battlefield administering last rites to the dying and giving medical aid to the wounded.

When an exploding mortar round inflicted painful multiple wounds to his arms and legs, and severed a portion of his right hand, he steadfastly refused all medical aid. Instead, he directed the corpsmen to help their wounded comrades and, with calm vigor, continued to move about the battlefield as he provided encouragement by voice and example to the valiant Marines.

Upon encountering a wounded corpsman in the direct line of fire of an enemy machine gunner positioned approximately 15 yards away, Lt. Capodanno rushed a daring attempt to aid and assist the mortally wounded corpsman. At that instant, only inches from his goal, he was struck down by a burst of machine gun fire.

By his heroic conduct on the battlefield, and his inspiring example, Lt. Capodanno upheld the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life in the cause of freedom.

In addition, he was also awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal. The government of Vietnam awarded him the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with Silver Star and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device.

Fr. Capodanno’s cause has been opened:

Prayer to Obtain a Favor Through the Intercession of the Servant of God Father Vincent R. Capodanno, M.M. by Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio

Almighty and merciful God, look with Love on those who plead for Your help. Through the intercession of your servant, Father Vincent Capodanno, missionary and Catholic Navy Chaplain, grant the favor I earnestly seek (mention the request). May Vincent, who died bringing consolation to the Marines he was privileged to serve on the field of battle, intercede in my need as I pray in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I want to add a word of thanks to a priest friend of mine, Fr. Tim Vakoc, with whom I was in seminary.  He suffered serious wounds in Iraq, which, after causing years of suffering, eventually lead to his passing away. May he rest in peace.

These men served in hell armed with love of God and love of country.  We should remember chaplains.

Like 10+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

TOTD 23 May 2018 – A Century-long Experiment

During the twentieth century the industrialized world was engaged in three major conflicts: World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. In all three wars one side contained a coalition whose nations favored authoritarian  governments running command economies. The other side was dominated by nations who favored representative governments with free-market economies.* In all three wars the coalition which was more representative and more free-market won and the coalition which was more authoritarian and with more centralization of the economy lost.

In all three cases before the war the authoritarian, command economy nations were viewed as more efficient with a more effective use of resources. The representative-government, free-market economy nations were viewed as messy, inefficient, and weak.

It was almost as if gods in Olympus were running a century-long debate on the issue of “Resolved: authoritarian government with command-controlled economies produce better results than representative governments with free-market economies.”  And those holding the pro position got their heads handed to them three times running.

So, what do we hear from today’s elites? You know, socialism (authoritarian with command economy) is really the way to go. Like the Bourbon kings of France, they learn nothing and forget nothing.

* Yes, there was at least one authoritarian, command-controlled economy nation in that coalition, but the bulk of the economic power was held by the representative, free-market partners.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

My People

As some of you are aware, I just finished a series of field tests at the Redlands (CA) airport. An unexpected bonus was finding out about the air show and beer festival that was held there last weekend. My wife and I spent Saturday enjoying the aircraft and the beer.

A jet car raced a biplane.

A jet truck raced a T-6 Texan.

A stunt plane landed on the top of a truck and took off again.

A helicopter flew upside down. A couple of Canucks* in CF-18 Hornets buzzed us at twilight. I was too busy enjoying the show to take pictures of those.

But the best part was the people. People were respectful when the Canadian* and US anthems were played at the opening. When a couple of F-18s flew over, some guy said, “That’s the sound of freedom.” The womenfolk could identify military aircraft: “Look, honey, there’s an F-16!” And this guy had a great T-shirt. He even straightened it out so I could take a picture.

Yup, these are my kind of folks.


*Yes, we invited the Canadians: the RCAF.

Like 16+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Book Review: The Second World Wars

“The Second World Wars” by Victor Davis HansonThis may be the best single-volume history of World War II ever written. While it does not get into the low-level details of the war or its individual battles (don’t expect to see maps with boxes, front lines, and arrows), it provides an encyclopedic view of the first truly global conflict with a novel and stunning insight every few pages.

Nothing like World War II had ever happened before and, thankfully, has not happened since. While earlier wars may have seemed to those involved in them as involving all of the powers known to them, they were at most regional conflicts. By contrast, in 1945, there were only eleven countries in the entire world which were neutral—not engaged on one side or the other. (There were, of course, far fewer countries then than now—most of Africa and South Asia were involved as colonies of belligerent powers in Europe.) And while war had traditionally been a matter for kings, generals, and soldiers, in this total war the casualties were overwhelmingly (70–80%) civilian. Far from being confined to battlefields, many of the world’s great cities, from Amsterdam to Yokohama, were bombed, shelled, or besieged, often with disastrous consequences for their inhabitants.

“Wars” in the title refers to Hanson’s observation that what we call World War II was, in reality, a collection of often unrelated conflicts which happened to occur at the same time. The settling of ethnic and territorial scores across borders in Europe had nothing to do with Japan’s imperial ambitions in China, or Italy’s in Africa and Greece. It was sometimes difficult even to draw a line dividing the two sides in the war. Japan occupied colonies in Indochina under the administration of Vichy France, notwithstanding Japan and Vichy both being nominal allies of Germany. The Soviet Union, while making a massive effort to defeat Nazi Germany on the land, maintained a non-aggression pact with Axis power Japan until days before its surrender and denied use of air bases in Siberia to Allied air forces for bombing campaigns against the home islands.

Combatants in different theatres might have well have been fighting in entirely different wars, and sometimes in different centuries. Air crews on long-range bombing missions above Germany and Japan had nothing in common with Japanese and British forces slugging it out in the jungles of Burma, nor with attackers and defenders fighting building to building in the streets of Stalingrad, or armoured combat in North Africa, or the duel of submarines and convoys to keep the Atlantic lifeline between the U.S. and Britain open, or naval battles in the Pacific, or the amphibious landings on islands they supported.

World War II did not start as a global war, and did not become one until the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the Japanese attack on U.S., British, and Dutch territories in the Pacific. Prior to those events, it was a collection of border wars, launched by surprise by Axis powers against weaker neighbours which were, for the most part, successful. Once what Churchill called the Grand Alliance (Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States) was forged, the outcome was inevitable, yet the road to victory was long and costly, and its length impossible to foresee at the outset.

The entire war was unnecessary, and its horrific cost can be attributed to a failure of deterrence. From the outset, there was no way the Axis could have won. If, as seemed inevitable, the U.S. were to become involved, none of the Axis powers possessed the naval or air resources to strike the U.S. mainland, no less contemplate invading and occupying it. While all of Germany and Japan’s industrial base and population were, as the war progressed, open to bombardment day and night by long-range, four engine, heavy bombers escorted by long-range fighters, the Axis possessed no aircraft which could reach the cities of the U.S. east coast, the oil fields of Texas and Oklahoma, or the industrial base of the midwest. While the U.S. and Britain fielded aircraft carriers which allowed them to project power worldwide, Germany and Italy had no effective carrier forces and Japan’s were reduced by constant attacks by U.S. aviation.

This correlation of forces was known before the outbreak of the war. Why did Japan and then Germany launch wars which were almost certain to result in forces ranged against them which they could not possibly defeat? Hanson attributes it to a mistaken belief that, to use Hitler’s terminology, the will would prevail. The West had shown itself unwilling to effectively respond to aggression by Japan in China, Italy in Ethiopia, and Germany in Czechoslovakia, and Axis leaders concluded from this, catastrophically for their populations, that despite their industrial, demographic, and strategic military weakness, there would be no serious military response to further aggression (the “bore war” which followed the German invasion of Poland and the declarations of war on Germany by France and Britain had to reinforce this conclusion). Hanson observes, writing of Hitler, “Not even Napoleon had declared war in succession on so many great powers without any idea how to destroy their ability to make war, or, worse yet, in delusion that tactical victories would depress stronger enemies into submission.” Of the Japanese, who attacked the U.S. with no credible capability or plan for invading and occupying the U.S. homeland, he writes, “Tojo was apparently unaware or did not care that there was no historical record of any American administration either losing or quitting a war—not the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, or World War I—much less one that Americans had not started.” (Maybe they should have waited a few decades….)

Compounding the problems of the Axis was that it was essentially an alliance in name only. There was little or no co-ordination among its parties. Hitler provided Mussolini no advance notice of the attack on the Soviet Union. Mussolini did not warn Hitler of his attacks on Albania and Greece. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was as much a surprise to Germany as to the United States. Japanese naval and air assets played no part in the conflict in Europe, nor did German technology and manpower contribute to Japan’s war in the Pacific. By contrast, the Allies rapidly settled on a division of labour: the Soviet Union would concentrate on infantry and armoured warfare (indeed, four out of five German soldiers who died in the war were killed by the Red Army), while Britain and the U.S. would deploy their naval assets to blockade the Axis, keep the supply lines open, and deliver supplies to the far-flung theatres of the war.  U.S. and British bomber fleets attacked strategic targets and cities in Germany day and night.  The U.S. became the untouchable armoury of the alliance, delivering weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, aircraft, and fuel in quantities which eventually surpassed those all other combatants on both sides combined. Britain and the U.S. shared technology and cooperated in its development in areas such as radar, antisubmarine warfare, aircraft engines (including jet propulsion), and nuclear weapons, and shared intelligence gleaned from British codebreaking efforts.

As a classicist, Hanson examines the war in its incarnations in each of the elements of antiquity: Earth (infantry), Air (strategic and tactical air power), Water (naval and amphibious warfare), and Fire (artillery and armour), and adds People (supreme commanders, generals, workers, and the dead). He concludes by analysing why the Allies won and what they ended up winning—and losing. Britain lost its empire and position as a great power (although due to internal and external trends, that might have happened anyway). The Soviet Union ended up keeping almost everything it had hoped to obtain through its initial partnership with Hitler. The United States emerged as the supreme economic, industrial, technological, and military power in the world and promptly entangled itself in a web of alliances which would cause it to underwrite the defence of countries around the world and involve it in foreign conflicts far from its shores.

Hanson concludes,

The tragedy of World War II—a preventable conflict—was that sixty million people had perished to confirm that the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain were far stronger than the fascist powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy after all—a fact that should have been self-evident and in no need of such a bloody laboratory, if not for prior British appeasement, American isolationism, and Russian collaboration.

At 720 pages, this is not a short book (the main text is 590 pages; the rest are sources and end notes), but there is so much wisdom and startling insights among those pages that you will be amply rewarded for the time you spend reading them.

Hanson, Victor Davis. The Second World Wars. New York: Basic Books, 2017. ISBN 978-0-465-06698-8.

Here is a two-part Uncommon Knowledge interview with the author about the war and the book.

Like 13+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Torture Girl

The Senate confirmed a new director for the CIA, to replace Mike Pompeo who narrowly won confirmation to become the new Secretary of State.  The new Director is Gina Haspel.  Democrats made a lot of noise about her, saying she was unfit because she “supervised torture” and destroyed records.

Those charges stem from three months in late 2002, when she briefly served as director of a CIA black site in Thailand that had custody of a handful of Al-Qaeda bad guys.  Some of them were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques.”   There were videos of some of these interrogations, which, after consultation with Dep’t. of Justice legal advisors, she had destroyed.

We really do not know what techniques were applied in Thailand, but it seems likely that we can take their word that the techniques there were the same as applied in Guantanamo.  If so, then I do not consider it appropriate to label those techniques as “torture.”   And I do not have a beef about destroying the videos, considering how videos can be edited for PR value by bad guys such as Al-Qaeda and our own Opposition Party.

I saw a Left-leaning news blog put up a hystrionical account of Ms. Haspel’s record on “torture.”   They cited the terrible treatment dished out to one particular sympathetic Arab, and quoted testimony before the Senate Committee by Dr. Sondra Crosby.  Dr. Crosby complained about “cruel” treatment that left her client with “ongoing suffering.”

This article, at theIntercept, named the “victim.”   They are all outraged over a fellow who got waterboarded:  Mr. Abdal Rahim al-Nashiri.  At the bottom of their article they identified Mr. Abdal Rahim al-Nashiri as suspected of leading the team that bombed the U.S.S. Cole.

He fought with the Taliban, joined al-Qaeda, helped the 1998 embassy bombers, bombed a French tanker, worked on other terrorist attacks that failed (due to incompetence of the bombers), and helped smuggle weapons to jihadiis in Africa and Yemen.

He gets no sympathy from me.

I think Ms. Haspel will do well as Director of the CIA.

And, I think it won’t hurt one bit for the entire world to think of the Director of the CIA as “Torture Girl.”


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Comparing Afghanistan and the Vietnam War

Last week, I saw a headline in passing that pulled me in: “The US and Afghanistan: can’t win the war, can’t stop it, can’t leave.”   It was in The Guardian.  Yes, that Guardian.  They quickly got to a bit that captured my attention:

Trump is now reportedly reverting to his previous sceptical stance on the Afghan imbroglio. Rand Paul, a Republican senator known for isolationist views, said Trump agreed the US should forget “fight to win” and cut and run instead. “The president told me over and over again in general we’re getting the hell out of there,” Paul told the Washington Post this week. Trump’s apparent volte-face, channelling the Grand Old Duke of York, mirrors his recent, impulsive decision to pull US troops out of Syria.   More serious students of America’s Afghan dilemma believe that whatever Trump may say, the US is stuck there indefinitely.

They concluded with this:

“A simple win-loss dynamic is the wrong way to think about the war. America’s not in Afghanistan to win. It’s there to hold the line,” said Nicholas Grossman, professor of political science at the University of Illinois, writing in National Review.   America’s aim was no longer democratic nation-building, as in the era of George W Bush, Grossman said. There was no ideal end state in view. But the US had no choice but to stay in order to prevent jihadist groups filling any future vacuum, as happened in Iraq; to keep the Iranians and Russians out; and to keep Pakistan honest, stable, and in the US column. As the death toll mounts and the elected government weakens, the sum of America’s shrunken Afghan ambition appears to be: hang on in there – and fingers crossed.

Which prompted me to go find Professor Grossman’s article at National Review.  I had never heard of him before.  He is with the University of Iowa (evidently he also lectures at the Univ. of Illinois), and his blog is “Arc Digital.”  The article is billed as “rethinking America’s strategic goals” in Afghanistan.

I am generally in agreement with the conclusion reached by Professor Grossman, which is that America needs to stay in Afghanistan long term in order to maintain stability and continue to fight the Taliban.  But I was irked to see the ignorant remarks that this article included, in a passage that compared the conflict in Afghanistan to the Vietnam War.

It’s important to learn lessons from the past, but every war is different, and Afghanistan is not Vietnam. From a humanitarian perspective, the Taliban are worse than the North Vietnamese, especially regarding treatment of women. And the Taliban’s religious fundamentalism is less popular in Afghanistan than communism was in 1960s and ‘70s Vietnam.

However, using force abroad requires a compelling national interest. Vietnam did not threaten American security and, though it may not have been easy to see at the time, withdrawing did not put American interests in danger. The theory that communism would sweep across southeast Asia proved incorrect. Though the communist party remains in power, Vietnam evolved with China into a sort of state managed capitalism, rather than revolution-exporting communism. And Vietnam is now one of the world’s most pro-American countries, with over 75% holding a favorable opinion of the United States.

The part I highlighted in bold is nonvalid thinking, because it considers the conflict in Vietnam as if it were isolated, and not a part of the Cold War.  The Communist aggression in Vietnam was a threat to American interests and to America’s friends.  Withdrawing from Vietnam put the entire free world in danger.

The result of our abandonment of South Vietnam was a more aggressive Soviet support for proxy wars in Central America, South America and Africa, and then in Afghanistan.  I think “the theory that communism would sweep across southeast Asia proved incorrect” is one of the most ignorant statements I have seen on this topic.  Nearly five million people were murdered by the Communist regimes that seized power in South Vietnam, and then Cambodia and Laos.  Over half a million Cambodians fled the Killing Fields as refugees.  A quarter of a million Vietnamese refugees became “Boat People,” with unknown numbers who disappeared at sea.

Yes, Vietnam evolved into a “sort of state-managed capitalism,” a process that took over three decades.  And, yes, Vietnam did not continue to export Communist revolutionaries (after Cambodia and Laos).  The exportation of Communist revolutionaries was done by the Soviets (later also the Chinese), in Nicaragua, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Angola, Eritrea, Namibia, South Africa, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Chad, Sri Lanka, and of course Afghanistan.  All of those “proxy wars” saw emboldened Soviet agitation due to America’s betrayal of our friends and allies in South Vietnam.  Many of those “dominoes” fell, and the ones that avoided Communism only did so with American aid.  The global death and misery that resulted from our withdrawal from South Vietnam is uncalculable.

I am really disappointed to see that editors who prize their magazine as being a voice of conservativism can select such material, even if they agree, as I do, with the conclusion.  It tacitly accepts the Leftist spin on the Vietnam War.  These people are to be avoided.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar